Alternate Approach to Crew Exploration Vehicle

[Illuminatus Primus]

Apparently the Ares I "stick" - the liquid-boosted CEV over a 5 segment SRB stack intended as the next man-rated launcher in Constellation is underpowered by several metric tons and the project has hit a new pothole. I found this alternative architecture study:

An Alternate Approach towards Achieving the New Vision for Space Exploration

Stephen Metschan
President/CEO, TeamVision Corporation, Federal Way, WA, 98003

Before us is a watershed opportunity to increase the depth of space exploration and development. The Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) provides a vital first step towards this important long term goal. Based on the key objectives contained in the ESAS, an alternate space exploration architecture was formulated by the author that reduces complexity, time, risk and cost while simultaneously improving Lunar and Mars mission, affordability, safety and expandability. This was achieved by re-sequencing mission objectives, spacecraft elements and launch vehicle requirements reducing the development bottlenecks in NASA’s current Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) plan. This re-sequencing was performed by a powerful new analysis process that enables the evaluation of trillions of scenarios. Utilizing this new process we have developed a series of spacecraft, launch vehicles and missions recommendations grouped into five interrelated exploration Eras of:

* Manned Exploration Transition (2004-2016)
* Lunar Return Missions (2012-2020)
* Manned Lunar Surface Missions (2016-2020)
* Lunar Resource Development Utilizing Mars Class Hardware (2020-2030)
* Manned Mars Missions Utilizing Lunar Resources (2024-2030)

The first Era is focused on replacing the Space Shuttle’s International Space Station mission role. This is accomplished through the use of existing medium class Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV) using a Lunar class Crew Module and lower mass lunar precursor Service Module. In the Lunar Return Mission Era we introduce a new family of hybrid Heavy Lift Vehicles (HLV) based on ELV & Shuttle Derived launch systems that enables the performance of historic and scientifically important lunar precursor missions. These lunar precursor spacecraft are then combined and launched via a growth version of the hybrid HLV family to perform two crew direct ascent/return manned Lunar surface missions. These manned Lunar surface missions, working in close concert with the pervious Era’s remote controlled lunar surface robots, synergistically increase the exploration efficiency of both manned and unmanned missions. The higher lunar surface payload delivery capabilities of the direct return architecture are then expanded into a Lunar Surface Rendezvous (LSR) architecture. Utilizing Mars mission precursor equipment a significant expansion of lunar resource development is implemented. These Lunar resources and facilities are then used to significantly lower all future launch expenses enabling a significant expansion in both Lunar and Mars mission scopes. Mars precursor missions to the Asteroids and Mars vicinity are then performed utilizing the Lunar tested Mars class hardware forming the final foundation for manned Mars surface missions. Going beyond Mars other national imperatives are addressed that substantiate our overall approach which enables a significant increase in the direct relevance of space exploration and development for everyone on Earth.

Full report (9.7 mb .pdf)

Here's an alternative plan to NASA's current Project Constellation plans. You have the use of current and upgraded EELVs as support and stop-gap vehicles to service ICS and to put the first block CEVs in orbit without interruption from the retirement of the shuttle fleet, and delaying the development of complex hardware like new pads and towers longer, using more and existing SSTS hardware in the shorter-term. And its modular, eventually expanding to collossal theoretical launchers like TeamVision's Jupiter-III vehicle, which uses two shuttle ET and 2x SRBs stacks as drop-off boosters.

[Crayz9000]

Scarily, I can't really find any immediate flaws in the plan. It's spread-out enough that problems can be tackled as they arrive, meaning that possible issues like aerobraking (required for Mars missions) should already be handled by the time that technology is needed.

[phongn]

NASA has fired back saying that Ares I has enough power.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The "Stick", along with most of Ares, is retarded. You're not really pulling off-the-shelf SSTS (and obviously not EELV) components for the VSE. The new 5-segment SRB will take years and billions. The SRB recovery system will to be totally redesigned to account for added weight and the interstage. The second-stage doesn't use the SSME anymore. We'll be designing the CM and SM maybe a decade before the actual Moon mission, so the Stick is boosting both unnecessary mass that will probably have to be redesigned or vamped as mission details change. We'll have to develop a new tower for the pad now.

The alternative plan uses EELVs potentially before the SSTS is retired with an interim CM and SM, and that stopgap continues until an off-the-shelf SDLV is developed with EELV equipment and existing SRBs. As opposed to having to develop the 5-seg SRBs and essentially a from-scratch booster rocket that will have little in common with the ET.

[Crayz9000]

I'm very confused here... just WHY is NASA so dead-set against current commercial EELVs, especially given that there is a law stating that they should use commercial capabilities whenever possible?!?

[phongn]

I'm very confused here... just WHY is NASA so dead-set against current commercial EELVs, especially given that there is a law stating that they should use commercial capabilities whenever possible?!?

Probably a combination of NIH syndrome and the fact that EELV isn't man-rated.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm very confused here... just WHY is NASA so dead-set against current commercial EELVs, especially given that there is a law stating that they should use commercial capabilities whenever possible?!?

Probably a combination of NIH syndrome and the fact that EELV isn't man-rated.

The whole concept of man-rating is an imbecilic red herring. One, the SSTS stack has been one of the more fundamentally vexed manned launch systems in history, presenting multiple different angles by which that big pile of explosives can kill its crew.

Second, its not as if they intentionally do not take precautions with the EELV system that would with manned launchers. To say nothing of the fact that we reached space on ballistic missile weapons systems - all the way through to Saturn IB - and the Russians still are. Every concern that can be addressed with EELVs is, and EELVs are already more simplisitic and less fundamentally flawed than the SSTS or "SSTS-derived" hardware. The "Stick"'s stupid shape means the center of pressure will constantly try to flip the rocket over, and it doesn't have engine-out. I don't see how this represents fewer essential dangers than the EELV.

As long as the G-forces can be kept within acceptable limits for ISS launches, we should have an interim launcher. Besides, working with and upgrading the EELVs doesn't cause us to build redundent expensive and time-consuming boosters in the same weight-class. And off-the-shelf hardware from these future-generation EELVs can be used in later boosters as in the study above.

[phongn]

I agree with you on EELV - I was simply noting NASA's resistance to it regardless of if the reasoning was sound or not.

[Sikon]

I'm very confused here... just WHY is NASA so dead-set against current commercial EELVs

Much more could be accomplished even with off-the-shelf ELV hardware, so there doesn't seem to be a very good reason.

For example, although still far from optimal, NASA could have done much more in the past if they purchased Proton rockets for cargo and Kosmos rockets for astronaut launches. The Proton rocket costs on the order of $90 million per launch putting 20 metric tons into LEO, so using such suitable off-the-shelf hardware would easily put 40000 tons into orbit for the $174 billion total Space Shuttle program cost. That is many, many times what the Space Shuttle launched, like part of the 200 metric-ton ISS. Likewise, the Kosmos rocket is much less expensive and historically has obtained proportionally a lesser rate of disastrous accidents than the Shuttle. *

NASA is estimated to spend $25 billion between now and 2020 on the Ares and Orion, mostly on development costs before the first launch, yet past history suggests the Ares will still cost much more than the Proton. Even $20 billion could put 5000 tons into LEO if instead spent on suitable existing expendable launch vehicles, which could allow much more to be sent to the Moon or elsewhere than a small number of 25-ton Orion capsules. That Orion capsules will have an escape rocket is a good concept for safety, but astronauts don't have to be launched on the same vehicle as cargo, so relatively cheap unmodified ELVs could launch cargo.

While Russian rockets are not the only example possible, foreign ELVs logically wouldn't be ruled out when practically any facilities could easily be purchased and moved to launch operations within the U.S. itself if desired.

There appears to be a major "not-invented-here" syndrome. Politically it is most popular to develop a new launch system even if it will probably cost more than some existing commercial launch vehicles, like the total $1.3 billion cost per launch of the Space Shuttle was more than 10 times greater than the Proton and more than 100 times greater than the Kosmos.

All launch vehicles of today cost orders of magnitude more than the necessary fuel costs (i.e. cents per pound LOX propellant but thousands of $ per pound to orbit), so developing a new launch system would be appropriate if a drastic improvement. However, that is not the situation here, making use of existing ELVs instead favorable in comparison to development costs.

The Ares doesn't have the same complexity as the Space Shuttle, so hopefully it will not be nearly quite as expensive, but it is still unlikely to exceed the cost performance of sending equipment to orbit with existing ELVs.

------------------

* Proton & Kosmos info., Shuttle / ISS info., future CEV funding, and dollar conversion.